David, I don’t think Nature moved away from its areas of expertise – science and scientific research – when it made a value endorsement on which candidate would be more supportive of the values of scientific enquiry. I don’t like (or agree with) the idea that executive decisionmaking is equivalent to scientific enquiry, but since that is an inference of what you’re saying, I’d like you to please walk me through why you consider them equivalent, if you do consider them equivalent. Making decisions can rely on scientific enquiry, but there are many non-scientific things that play into decisionmaking that I don’t see them as the same thing.

Further, it’s not clear to me why you think Nature’s rationale is weak, aside from this idea that scientists should only engage politics as a narrow special interest (making political choices based strictly on science policies and related issues). I would think a journal should strive to make some larger point than that “candidate x will do better by us”. Otherwise those efforts are better suited to advocates and lobbyists.

As for your examples, first let’s emphasize that they are hypotheticals, and may not reflect the actual stances of candidates or how they arrived at those positions. They are also not connected to reasoned assessment in the same way that the Nature editorial does. This focus is necessary, and I would not be supportive of the editorial if it wasn’t. In fact, the last one focuses on process of soliciting opinion and not about assessing that opinion. Whether or not the choices reflect party lines or not is completely irrelevant to what Nature is focused on, and again focuses on political process rather than reasoned assessment of the issues.

That said, I do want to dig a bit more on the idea of this endorsement being inappropriate. This may require a separate post, because I think my reasons for it being appropriate can be better demonstrated by a more explicit comparison with the bad job SEED did in its endorsement. I can’t tell from these comments whether the issue is any scientific publication opining on politics or Nature doing it. The idea that scientists or scientific institutions can (or should) hold themselves outside of politics is delusional. It does not mean that the engagement with politics should be done just like any other interest group. SEED failed that test, and Nature took good care. The idea that experts can only hold forth on the areas of their expertise is similarly stifling. The challenge is to take care to denote when the expertise is relevant and when it is not.

But for the sake of your question, let’s see about their same rationale applied differently – anything can fit the “values of scientific enquiry” both positive and negative. My point in this post is this – their rationale as they have applied it is weak. My overall point is that journal editors should not stray from their expertise and the purpose of the journal.

So let’s do a little bit of a thought experiment – all of these could fit in the editorial.

“John McCain is thoughtful and seeks out a diverse cross-section of opinions, exemplifying the values of scientific enquiry. Witness his well-reasoned positions on climate change and Guantanamo Bay, in which he and his able staff sought out the expertise of the best scientists and Geneva Convention legal scholars. He stands out in particular on these issues as the evidence has convinced him to buck his own party for the better.”

Or, how about, “John McCain exhibits a tendency to dismiss the values and process of scientific enquiry. His famous temper short-circuits the proper judgment of complex issues, and he tends to make instant decisions from his emotional gut.”

Or, how about, “Barack Obama goes overboard in his solicitation of opinion. Disturbingly, his official advisors on specific issues number in the hundreds, a serious issue considering his career inability to make difficult decisions on issues that are from clear-cut, from his law review board days to voting present hundreds of times as a state-elected official. His tendency to overanalyze issues, yet eventually arrive at traditional party line policy is cause for concern if he claims the mantle of open-mindedness.”

Or, “Obama’s willingness to actively solicit alternatives from a very wide spectrum and promise an intellectual diversity of appointees is both a strength and weakness. After the Bush Administration years, this is welcome. Bearing in mind the lesson of the Carter years, this could be disastrous. Dissenting and alternative opinions were encouraged among cabinet officials then, leading to a fiasco of key appointees regularly defying the president and undercutting official policy.”

And if we can agree that I just disagree with the editors in their value judgment, then I ask again, why would the editors of a science journal make an endorsement based on a non-field judgment? Sorry “values of scientific enquiry” doesn’t cut it; their argument comes down to executive decisionmaking.

Personally, I’d prefer science journals to stick to their purpose and editorialize about science and particular fields.

Do you prefer the rationale behind the SEED endorsement – policy choices – better? Why or why not? They justified based on established positions, Nature asserts that to be a risky maneuver for science, since it threatens to make science a narrow interest of a particular party.

Who should make the – apparently strictly academic – judgment about executive decisionmaking and presidential leadership? That assertion you make in the last paragraph would be a surprise to the vast majority of people, myself included. Were it an accurate reflection of reality, The American Political Science Association would get a lot more attention than it currently does.

What about the Nature decision is arbitrary? They explained their rationale. Claiming it arbitrary because you disagree with their rationale is disingenuous. Do you think scientific enquiry is value-less?

Values are part of these decisions – always. That Nature was explicit about it (certainly more explicit than SEED) should be encouraged.

The lede can be viewed a different way which is pernicious – “The values of scientific enquiry, rather than any particular policy positions on science, suggest a preference for one US presidential candidate over the other.” Or put another way, because we don’t have a basis for choosing one candidate over another based on positions, we will come up with an arbitrary basis to affirm our choice.

What do the editors come up with? Capriciousness, Sarah Palin, “seeking a range of opinion,” etc. If the editors would have pointed to some McCain statements that demonstrated a lack of respect for research or a range of opinion—autism and vaccines maybe—that would have been valid. I didn’t know Nature is a good judge of pragmatism in health care either – straying a bit maybe?

Sorry but executive decisionmaking and presidential leadership is a subdiscipline in scholarship, which is probably a surprise to the editors. Once again we see scientists jumping into waters they think are an inch deep and instead are in over their heads. The editors should have stuck to their expertise and field.

If the review board of a journal like the conclusion of a paper, it is more likely to be printed than if the journal doesn’t like the conclusion. And it doesn’t matter how scientifically sound a paper is.

Any journal can find many reason to print or not a paper.

If a reader disagrees with the value choice, that’s one reason to discount the endorsement. If a reader thinks the value choice isn’t good for the community, that’s a second reason. If a reader doesn’t think a scientific journal has any business making value choices, that’s another reason. The last reason, however, presumes that scientific endeavors (even journals) are value free. That presumption has no basis in reality.

The endorsement wouldn’t pass muster as a regular article, or even as a brief note. It’s not intended to.